Page 107 of 152 FirstFirst ... 75797105106107108109117 ... LastLast
Results 1,061 to 1,070 of 1515

Thread: Should bakers be forced to make gender transition celebration cakes?

  1. Top | #1061
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Buenos Aires
    Posts
    3,338
    Archived
    7,588
    Total Posts
    10,926
    Rep Power
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by laughing dog
    Obviously you are mistaken.
    No. You claimed "Using your logic, anytime anyone has to choose between options, they are being forced." You provided no support for that claim. I challenge you to derive the conclusion "anytime anyone has to choose between options, they are being forced." from what I said, by means of a logically valid argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by laughing dog
    I simply said making theft a crime is not forcing people to not steal. I did not say anything about deploying police to stop theft. Why do you feel the need to change the situation to suit your argument?
    No, I was trying to get precision. When you say "making theft a crime", that includes the usual thing that happens when a conduct is made a crime, that is the law is actually enforced? If yes, then sure you are forcing them, or attempting to. If not, then you are not but the matter is not analogous to anything I said.

    Of cource, forcing people not to steal is generally permissible and sometimes obligatory depending on the person's job. And when we talk about forcing people to do stuff, we usually do not talk about these pretty much universal cases. But that does not change the fact that there is force.


    Quote Originally Posted by laughing dog
    No, you mistaken. When people make a free choice, they are not forced to do so. It is idiotic to claim otherwise.
    No, you grossly misrepresent what I said. Of course, when people make a free choice, they are not being forced. When someone makes a choice they would freely make even though someone is forcing them, they might not feel forced even if someone is doing the forcing. And when someone makes a choice they wouldn't otherwise make because they're being forced, well then they're being forced, as is the baker.

    Quote Originally Posted by laughing dog
    Consider this. Neither Case 1 or Case 2 resemble the situation of the baker. And you are deliberately adding an element of force to the scenario. Really, that is pathetic.
    Obviously that is the situation of the baker:

    Case 1 applied: Refrain from selling cakes without getting a licence and doing such-and-such stuff (paying some fees, getting some permits, or whatever the requirements are). If you sell cakes without a licence, we will forcibly stop you. (and if there is an exception for churches, then Refrain from selling cakes without getting a licence and doing such-and-such stuff except in a church, etc.)-

    Quote Originally Posted by laughing dog
    I see no point in case 3 at all.
    Case 3 is Walmart. Obviously.


    Quote Originally Posted by laughing dog
    Which leads me to conclude you are just making stuff up to try to save your ridiculous position.
    If you tried to understand rather than trying to attack, maybe you would not reach conclusions so far from the truth.

  2. Top | #1062
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    971
    Archived
    3,259
    Total Posts
    4,230
    Rep Power
    63
    Quote Originally Posted by untermensche View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by James Madison View Post

    You can obsess over the irrelevant “not a thing wrong with the message.” I couldn’t care less. My POV doesn’t concern itself with consideration of whether there is or isn’t “a thing wrong with the message.”
    Yes. Then you have started to talk about morality.

    And what people should be allowed to claim in courts.

    Like hating some group who has harmed nobody is a religious belief.

    That is what many Christians said about the slavery of black people.

    It was scriptural and part of their religion.

    Free speech means one can, freely, advocate, espouse, demand, “prejudice,” even “ignorant prejudice.”
    Sure.

    But you can't advocate it in a place of business.

    You can't use your ignorant prejudice and only your ignorant prejudice to deny service to groups you for some strange reason don't like.

    And telling me the things a totally fucked up and insane Supreme Court has decided is not persuasive in a rational conversation.

    Some of these Supreme Court decisions lately are going to look like Dred Scott very soon.
    To the contrary, free speech rights do not cease to exist for a business or businesses.

    And refusing to make a message, written message, symbolical message, expressive message, because of the message isn’t “some strange reason” but a free speech right. The motive for not wanting to make the message may be “strange” to you but so what. Freedom allows people to have “reasons” for their actions, and to act upon them, regardless of what your personally render as “strange.” What you believe is “strange” doesn’t matter.

    Finally, if you think a “rational conversation” involves being dismissive of a POV on the basis of ad hominems, then you’ve deluded yourself. SCOTUS may have a weak argument, a flawed argument, but it isn’t a “rational conversation” to dismiss what they’ve said on the basis of your ad hominems of “fucked up and insane.” That is neither persuasive or rational.

  3. Top | #1063
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    19,042
    Archived
    41,943
    Total Posts
    60,985
    Rep Power
    87
    Quote Originally Posted by Angra Mainyu View Post
    No. You claimed "Using your logic, anytime anyone has to choose between options, they are being forced." You provided no support for that claim. I challenge you to derive the conclusion "anytime anyone has to choose between options, they are being forced." from what I said, by means of a logically valid argument.
    You are mistaken.

    Quote Originally Posted by Angra Mainyu View Post
    No, I was trying to get precision. When you say "making theft a crime", that includes the usual thing that happens when a conduct is made a crime, that is the law is actually enforced? If yes, then sure you are forcing them, or attempting to. If not, then you are not but the matter is not analogous to anything I said.
    If you were trying to get precision, you would have included more options in your response. In any event, your claim that giving people an option constitutes force is ridiculous.
    Quote Originally Posted by Angra Mainyu View Post
    Of cource, forcing people not to steal is generally permissible and sometimes obligatory depending on the person's job.
    Passing a law against ____ is not forcing anyone to do anything.
    Quote Originally Posted by Angra Mainyu View Post
    And when we talk about forcing people to do stuff, we usually do not talk about these pretty much universal cases. But that does not change the fact that there is force.
    Are you using the royal "we"? Otherwise your statement about what "we" do is mistaken.


    Quote Originally Posted by Angra Mainyu View Post
    No, you grossly misrepresent what I said. Of course, when people make a free choice, they are not being forced. When someone makes a choice they would freely make even though someone is forcing them, they might not feel forced even if someone is doing the forcing. And when someone makes a choice they wouldn't otherwise make because they're being forced, well then they're being forced, as is the baker.
    You are torturing language again.

    Quote Originally Posted by Angra Mainyu View Post
    Obviously that is the situation of the baker:

    Case 1 applied: Refrain from selling cakes without getting a licence and doing such-and-such stuff (paying some fees, getting some permits, or whatever the requirements are). If you sell cakes without a licence, we will forcibly stop you. (and if there is an exception for churches, then Refrain from selling cakes without getting a licence and doing such-and-such stuff except in a church, etc.)-
    This is pathetic. You construct some narrow hypothetical that bears little to no resemblance to reality and then use it to justify your torture of the English language.

    Quote Originally Posted by Angra Mainyu View Post
    Case 3 is Walmart. Obviously.
    And obviously, it is an example of Walmart forcing people (using your "reasoning). Which is why I fail to see why you used it as a counter example, because it rebuts your argument.


    Quote Originally Posted by Angra Mainyu View Post
    If you tried to understand rather than trying to attack, maybe you would not reach conclusions so far from the truth.
    It is not an attack to point out the ridiculousness of your position.

  4. Top | #1064
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Buenos Aires
    Posts
    3,338
    Archived
    7,588
    Total Posts
    10,926
    Rep Power
    60
    laughing dog; you win, I'm too tired to keep refuting your absurdities. I will just say maybe you could understand it if you tried to understand.

  5. Top | #1065
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    19,042
    Archived
    41,943
    Total Posts
    60,985
    Rep Power
    87
    Quote Originally Posted by Angra Mainyu View Post
    laughing dog; you win,
    This is not about winning and losing.
    Quote Originally Posted by Angra Mainyu View Post
    I'm too tired to keep refuting your absurdities.
    Now you know how others feel in dealing with your ridiculous arguments.
    Quote Originally Posted by Angra Mainyu View Post
    I will just say maybe you could understand it if you tried to understand.
    The issue is not that I or someone else does not understand your position - it is clear we do. The issue is that apparently you don't understand your position.

  6. Top | #1066
    Content Thief Elixir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Mountains
    Posts
    16,794
    Archived
    707
    Total Posts
    17,501
    Rep Power
    62
    Should bakers be forced to make gender transition celebration cakes?

    In the meta-la-la-land of what "should be", nobody should be forced to do anything.

    That's the only correct answer to the OP's disingenuous question.

  7. Top | #1067
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    971
    Archived
    3,259
    Total Posts
    4,230
    Rep Power
    63
    Quote Originally Posted by ZiprHead View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by James Madison View Post

    And if that was the entirety of the facts, you’d be correct. But your comment ignores the context, a context which shows the cake symbolically has a message, and the cake itself has an expressive message.
    And if no one expressed the symbolic message no one would know it, therefore the cake isn't sending the message, the person asking for the cake is.

    I've asked before and no one answered. If you walked in and saw a pink and blue cake on a table, would you immediately come to the conclusion it was for a gender identity celebration?
    Your example has been addressed. Based on the limited information of your, and no other facts or information exist, then the answer is no.

    The flaw, however, with your example is the information and facts aren’t aren’t the scarce facts and information in your hypo. It is the facts, the information, context, which provides conduct as expressing a message, an object as a symbol expressing a message.

    And your notion the cake isn’t sending a message is contradicted by the facts. The cake symbolically and expressively represents Scardina, represents and expresses her identity as a transgender, her transition from male to female. She chose the colors of the cake intentionally to symbolically represent she is transgender, to express she is transgender. She intentionally asked for blue on the outside to represent what she was, what she used to be, and pink on the inside to represent who she is today, what she has become, her transition, and the cake expresses this about her.

    The cake has a message in this context.

  8. Top | #1068
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    971
    Archived
    3,259
    Total Posts
    4,230
    Rep Power
    63
    Quote Originally Posted by untermensche View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by James Madison View Post

    Your powers to play god are impressive, most impressive. Your “all knowing” quality, permitting you to absolutely say “not liking transsexuals is not part of any religion,” is remarkable. You’ll forgive my incredulity towards your presumptuous assertion to speak on behalf of all religion and all religious beliefs.

    Despite your tyrant like proclivity to tell others what they believe, what speech they will speak, Phillips has said transgender is contrary to his religious beliefs, and he is free to do so. Whether Phillips “likes” or dislikes them, I have no idea.
    Some insane bigot wants to claim his bigotry is somehow demanded by his religion.

    And I am the tyrant not allowing bigots to use made up religious doctrine to discriminate in the market place.

    You are incredible in your turning of reality on it's head.
    Umm, it’s a metaphor, but tyrants have something in common, they deprive people of freedom. You’re advocating free speech rights be damned.

  9. Top | #1069
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    971
    Archived
    3,259
    Total Posts
    4,230
    Rep Power
    63
    Quote Originally Posted by none View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by James Madison View Post
    Phillips refused because the message of the cake offended his religious beliefs.
    who cares, this is law.
    find remedy in the law, your gonna lose.
    Ya think? I’ve devoted many posts arguing the law, the substantive law. You’ve apparently not read them.

    Forgive my lack of deferring to your ineluctable logic of declaring “your gonna lose.” It was so compelling.

  10. Top | #1070
    Loony Running The Asylum ZiprHead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Do you like my pretty crown?
    Posts
    24,766
    Archived
    3,034
    Total Posts
    27,800
    Rep Power
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by James Madison View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ZiprHead View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by James Madison View Post

    And if that was the entirety of the facts, you’d be correct. But your comment ignores the context, a context which shows the cake symbolically has a message, and the cake itself has an expressive message.
    And if no one expressed the symbolic message no one would know it, therefore the cake isn't sending the message, the person asking for the cake is.

    I've asked before and no one answered. If you walked in and saw a pink and blue cake on a table, would you immediately come to the conclusion it was for a gender identity celebration?
    Your example has been addressed. Based on the limited information of your, and no other facts or information exist, then the answer is no.

    The flaw, however, with your example is the information and facts aren’t aren’t the scarce facts and information in your hypo. It is the facts, the information, context, which provides conduct as expressing a message, an object as a symbol expressing a message.

    And your notion the cake isn’t sending a message is contradicted by the facts. The cake symbolically and expressively represents Scardina, represents and expresses her identity as a transgender, her transition from male to female. She chose the colors of the cake intentionally to symbolically represent she is transgender, to express she is transgender. She intentionally asked for blue on the outside to represent what she was, what she used to be, and pink on the inside to represent who she is today, what she has become, her transition, and the cake expresses this about her.

    The cake has a message in this context.
    No, what it's proving is that the cake in and of itself does not convey a message. They only way any message is being conveyed is by the person who wants to purchase the cake. The cake purchaser may say the cake symbolizes something but saying that does not change the lack of content from the cake itself. By refusing to bake a contentless cake, the baker is relying on the symbology of the purchaser, not the cake. Therefore the baker is discriminating against the purchaser, not the purchase itself.
    When conservatives realize they cannot win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. They will abandon democracy.

    Poverty exists not because we cannot feed the poor but because we can't satisfy the rich.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •